Does Perception Equal Reality in Epistemology and Identity?

[W A Dunkley]

If a tree falls with no one around then there should be the presence of sound waves. Sound, nonetheless, is a product of the brain and a element of consciousness and would not be present if there is no one to hear. Perception is not the thing perceived. When dealing with the mystics claim of some alternate knowledge or truth, it is important to make the distinction and remember that while sound (i.e., the experience of hearing) is in the mind of the one who hears, it is still subject to objective standards (e.g., one should hear when sound waves are present and not when they are not

Our awareness and understanding of existence is ultimately derived from perception. Neither perception nor reason are infallible. The delusional mystic may really hear a little voice in his head but this does not mean he is really talking to god or little green men. The presence of feeling, sensation, sight, sound etc. is self-evident proof of their existence. Sensation is, to the one who senses, self-evident proof of the existence of sensation. The existence of sensation is proof that something exists even of one assumes that sensation is all that exists. Sensation (i.e., sensory stimuli) becomes perception when it is acknowledged as information about existence. Commonsense assumes this (surely even in the mind of a child or an animal.)

This commonsense is ascended to the status of knowledge (i.e., truth held with justified certainty) when the axiom is formulated, acknowledge and recognized as an immutable absolute (and this is what embracing mysticism steals from you). The formulation of the axiom is the product of creativity. The validity of all knowledge, no matter how it is obtained, ultimately rest on the axiom (i.e., the validity of perceptions and our minds interpretations of them is hinged in the law of identity). It is not necessary to know everything about the human mind and have an answer to every epistemological question in order to prove this. All that is required is an understanding of self-evidence and necessary truth.

Reason subsumes all human faculties. Reason refers to all the mental function that process perceptions into concepts an ideas or any mental constructs (e.g., thinking in pictures). The importance of creativity in humanities pursuit of truth is difficult to over state. Identism is in agreement with the gist of the statement “reason is the servant of creativity,” but the statement implies a concept of reason that must be rejected. It is better stated as “deduction is the servant of creativity, but both are faculties of reason.” The result of defining creativity outside of reason, if not the propose, is the exempting of creativity from the first principle and rendering it schizophrenic. It is significant, in this context, to consider how stagnant and uncreative, in any meaningful why, the contemporary intellectual and artistic environment has become. This is especially true in academic philosophy which is little more than a death rattle of “philosophy” along with the stuffy formality and pretentious snobbery of a disenfranchised aristocracy. While, conversely, in other fields of endeavor, especially technological, breathtaking demonstrations of creativity are still being produced by the participants of capitalism, the orphaned children of a betrayed and all but forgotten intellectual heritage.

It is incontrovertibly true that a dragon is a dragon. Denying this cannot be reduces to the absurd because it is already there, but yet, there are no dragons. Why then is the statement true? The term “dragon” is neither true nor false, because it does not assert anything. The statement “dragon is dragon” does not assert and prove the existence of dragon; it asserts and proves the existence of self-sameness (i.e., identity). Asserting “dragon is dragon” is not the same as asserting “dragons exist” and does not beg the question. As far as a complex statement (i.e., they make more than one assertion) such as the statement, “2+2=3 is 2+2=3”, it is true in the respect that it asserts identity and false in the respect that it asserts non-identity (i.e., it asserts 1+1+1+1 is 1+1+1). The statement “2+2=4” states essentially that 1+1+1+1 is 1+1+1+1, and this asserts a truth (even if your counting dragons). The truth it asserts is the truth of the existence of identity. It is the fact of the existence of self-sameness that grounds logical truth to reality. A true understanding of necessary truth and the claim to knowledge requires the acknowledgment that axioms assert the existence of self-sameness. The failure to acknowledge the existence of self-sameness will leave "knowledge" grounded on an assertion that is detached from reality.

Concepts generally refer to given totalities (which could be one reason why the identist concept of identity may seem aloof.) The construction of concepts is related to method, not metaphysics. There is only one entirety, the totality of existence; there is only one primary part, self-sameness. Do platonic terms such as chairness and tableness have reference to reality? Not in a platonic sense. A chair does not possesses chairness. This peculiar term, correctly defined nonetheless, does have validity. The term “chairness” refers to chair as a part of a greater whole. A room with a chair possesses chairness. The one thing that this terminology loses its validity when applied to is existence. There is no such thing as beingness. Things do not possesses being. Being possesses all other things that exist. The tragic and sordid history of philosophy is filled with the embracing if beingness and the denial of self-sameness.

The purging of contradictions (i.e., the assertions of non-identity) is not philosophical “McCarthyism.” The axiom is the only ultimate standard of knowledge and the only one which is absolute. Once this absolute is established identism endorses epistemological pragmatism. Much that is found in epistemological philosophy may be overly exclusive, embracing dogmatically what maybe, within a certain context, ideal methodology. Such methodology, nonetheless does not represent the only means of acquiring knowledge and may prove unsuited for some intellectual pursuits. When such methodology falters the mystic is waiting to provide an “alternative.” Rigid epistemology may have the effect of stifling and evicting unconventional (i.e., creative) thinking that is necessary for theoretical advancement. Mysticism usurps ideas, and often there creators, caste aside by “logic,” to corrupt and call there own. Thought, perception, any meaningful idea (i.e., with reference to reality) achieves validity, if to the best of our knowledge, it can be reconciled with the axiom, even of it violates some methodological standard.

The mystic claims of some other means of awareness or some other kind of truth incomprehensible to reason is an attempt to escape this absolute standard creating a perpetual circle of uncertainty. Failing to acknowledge necessary truth always leads to dogma (i.e., the ascension of the unproved to the status of “knowledge)" because half open eyes are better than blindness. Even the nihilist who contradicts himself by opening his mouth, will resort to dogma. Relativism’s superficial opposition to dogma does not create openness. Note the not so well hidden two faced hypocrisy of the statement “there are no absolutes.” It could be amended to exclude itself, but then it reveals itself as dogma supported by nothing and refutable by the axiom.

In contrast with rational conviction, to hold a “belief” as such, is to embrace contradiction and therefore untruth. A belief is the implied contradiction and untruth of asserting the unknown as known. If one decided to hold the belief that there are little green men in outer space, one has adopted the contradiction of claiming knowledge or opinion without the justification of supporting evidence. This would remain a contradiction and untruth even if it so happened that there really are little green men in outer space. Guilty or innocent, a man would receive an unfair trial if he was convicted by prejudice rather than evidence. This exemplifies the fact that having explicit justification for our convictions is no trivial matter. Mysticism is not exonerated by embracing (or usurping) a few ideas that happen to be true, just as a lynch mob is not excused if it hangs someone who happens to be guilty.

The workings of the mind are often latent and not completely understood. We often have hunches or insight and are not explicitly aware of the underlining reasons. It is important to note that mystics do not hold a ligament monopoly on this intuitive mode. Such insight is not some unknowable mystic awareness outside the realm of reason and perception. If one has a hunch or insight, it is important to acknowledge it as such. One should strive for the intellectual rigor necessary to uncover the hidden reason behind such insight. It is often by this means that one can determine if a hunch has any claim to legitimacy. Without such rigor, all one has is baseless prejudice.

Armed with the first principle, it is with the most supreme confidence that humanity can face a challenging but knowable world. In contraposition, without this “empowerment” we can only face the mystic’s “hell.” Such is the theme of human history.

 

[max1975]

Good argument. 2 things (to start with) in response:

1. How, precisely, do you define "mysticism"?

2. Suppose that, with a great deal of effort, everything in the universe can be fully understood using reason as you define it. However, due to some quirk of language, only 90% can be explained. Furthermore, very few people have the patience to put make the effort necessary to understand on their own. Do you a) deny the existence of the other 10%, b) spend the rest of your days trying to explain the other 10% even though you know it's futile, c) try to instruct people on how they can figure out the last 10% for themselves, d) become an alcoholic, or e)other ?

 

[W A Dunkley]

Mysticism, within the context of my philosophy, is the embracing of contradiction (i.e., non-identity); a contradiction is the assertion of non-identity. In an epistemological context it refers to the notion that knowledge can be grounded on something other that the principle of self-sameness.

Knowledge is not omniscience and 90% is overly optimistic, but to grasp the axiom is to know something about everything; all A is A!

http://www.identism.blogspot.com

 

[max1975]

Okay, just so you you know, I'm not trying to argue with you (at this point, anyway), just to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Mysticism, within the context of my philosophy, is the embracing of contradiction (i.e., non-identity); a contradiction is the assertion of non-identity.

Is a contradiction distinct from a paradox? How does your philosophy deal with the old "This sentence is false"?

Your definition of "mysticism" is fine for here, but I think there are "No absolute truth" people who would deny that they're mystics, and mystics who would deny embracing contradiction.

Just to be clear, if I say "As far as I can tell, reason is, by its nature, incapable of telling me everything I want to know," but at the same time I reject any contradiction that I find and I agree that A is A, am I a mystic?

In an epistemological context it refers to the notion that knowledge can be grounded on something other that the principle of self-sameness.

Can you give an example of "something other than self-sameness?"

Knowledge is not omniscience and 90% is overly optimistic, but to grasp the axiom is to know something about everything; all A is A!

Okay, but if I say that A is A, I haven't really told you anything about A. The statement is true, but not meaningful.

Maybe I'm missing the value of your point of view because it's so self-evident that I can't comprehend the opposing view?

 

[Rade]

Your philosophy (Originally Posted by W A Dunkley) sounds like phrases taken from Ayn Rand with no attribution ! These are not unique points of view that you present----

So, for example you state: "Our awareness and understanding of existence is ultimately derived from perception", and Ayn Rand writes "It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality".

You write, "Reason refers to all the mental function that process perceptions into concepts an ideas or any mental constructs"; Ayn Rand writes "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by your senses".

You write, "The mystic claims of some other means of awareness or some other kind of truth incomprehensible to reason is an attempt to escape this absolute standard creating a perpetual circle of uncertainty". Ayn Rand writes "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence of proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason"

The list of so-called "your" thoughts are in fact nothing more than rewrite of the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, and I for one find nothing original yet much lacking from the rigor of your definitions and positions taken.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Your philosophy (Originally Posted by W A Dunkley) sounds like phrases taken from Ayn Rand with no attribution ! These are not unique points of view that you present----

So, for example you state: "Our awareness and understanding of existence is ultimately derived from perception", and Ayn Rand writes "It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality".

You write, "Reason refers to all the mental function that process perceptions into concepts an ideas or any mental constructs"; Ayn Rand writes "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by your senses".

You write, "The mystic claims of some other means of awareness or some other kind of truth incomprehensible to reason is an attempt to escape this absolute standard creating a perpetual circle of uncertainty". Ayn Rand writes "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence of proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason"

The list of so-called "your" thoughts are in fact nothing more than rewrite of the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, and I for one find nothing original yet much lacking from the rigor of your definitions and positions taken.

Even if you are right about the source of Dunkley's ideas, how about giving us an opinion on "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence of proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason."

Personally, I think Rand (and Dunkley) does a disservice to mystical thought with that statement. Magic would have been a better term. Rand assumes sense experience and reason are the only sources of knowledge available to humans, but there is another variety of thinkers who dispute that. Are you familiar with the class of mystical thinkers represented by Meister Eckhart, Brother Lawrence, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, the "desert fathers", etc.?

 

[Rade]

Yes, Ayn Rand was well aware of this type of mental integration of "realist-mystic" thought. These types of thinkers that you mention attempt to preserve the primacy of existence by denying the identity of consciousness. They make an attempt to convert concepts into perceptual concretes that can only be understood by the mind via intuition or supernatural means (e.g., mysticism). Here is what Rand wrote in answer to your post:

"The implicit, but unadmitted premise of the neo-mystics of modern philosophy, is the notion that only an ineffable consciousness can acquire a valid knowledge of reality, that "true" knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition". "To the [mystic]...the irreducible primary is the automatic phenomena of his own consciousness". "Mysticism is the claim to non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge" By what means ? by means of "instinct", intuition", revelation" or some form of "just knowing". "Philosophically, the mystic is usually an exponent of the intrinsic (revealed) school of epistemology...psychologically, the mystic is a subjectivist who uses intrinsicism as a means to claim the primacy of his consciousness over that of others". --all quotes from "Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical", 1995, Chris M. Sciabarra, The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Needless to say, one is free to accept any theory of "knowledge" as being true, including "mysticism"--Ayn Rand rejects the approach of the mystic thinkers. You seem to imply in your post that the views of the mystics you cite somehow take logical priority over the position of Ayn Rand. So now I have a question, by what logical means do you think the mystics you cite are "in fact" correct in their thinking about knowledge, and Rand is "in fact" incorrect ?

 

[max1975]

psychologically, the mystic is a subjectivist who uses intrinsicism as a means to claim the primacy of his consciousness over that of others".[/I]

Hmm...so?

Who doesn't claim the primacy of his consciousness, at least implicitly, every time he opens his mouth?

The problem with denying the value, maybe even the primacy, of intrinsic knowledge is that there is nothing external which can prove to me that the rest of you aren't all figments of my imagination trying to drive me mad. I have to take that on faith (intrinsic knowledge).

In fact, it seems to me that if I don't grant primacy to my own non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge (which for the sake of brevity I'll just call "me"), I basically have to let myself be led around by whoever can convince me they have the most knowledge, since I can never verify everything (anything?) for myself. That sounds like a raw deal. Why should I be Ayn Rand's lapdog?

I don't mean to imply that objectivists are lapdogs . . . but if they aren't, I'd wager they're relying on intrinsic knowledge a little more than they'd admit.

I might be inclined to dispute the whole "non-rational, non-identifiable, etc." definition of mysticism, but I'd have to explain it all to myself first, and the topic can be dreadfully confusing.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hmm...so?

Who doesn't claim the primacy of his consciousness, at least implicitly, every time he opens his mouth?

The problem with denying the value, maybe even the primacy, of intrinsic knowledge is that there is nothing external which can prove to me that the rest of you aren't all figments of my imagination trying to drive me mad. I have to take that on faith (intrinsic knowledge).

In fact, it seems to me that if I don't grant primacy to my own non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge (which for the sake of brevity I'll just call "me"), I basically have to let myself be led around by whoever can convince me they have the most knowledge, since I can never verify everything (anything?) for myself. That sounds like a raw deal. Why should I be Ayn Rand's lapdog?

I don't mean to imply that objectivists are lapdogs . . . but if they aren't, I'd wager they're relying on intrinsic knowledge a little more than they'd admit.

I might be inclined to dispute the whole "non-rational, non-identifiable, etc." definition of mysticism, but I'd have to explain it all to myself first, and the topic can be dreadfully confusing.

Welcome to PF, I like the way you think.

 

[max1975]

Rand assumes sense experience and reason are the only sources of knowledge available to humans, but there is another variety of thinkers who dispute that.

I'm still not entirely clear on the issue. Do you think it might depend at all on the definition of reason? If one interprets it as identical to "logic," I think reason is limited (not wrong, certainly, just limited). But if, for example, you equate it with "God" (I'm guessing Rand wouldn't, but other people have) it's another matter. According to Dunkley, "Reason refers to all the mental function that process perceptions into concepts an ideas or any mental constructs." This seems to be somewhere in between, and might it encompass (or lead to) the other sources of knowledge you're thinking of?

Welcome to PF, I like the way you think.

Thank you. I was delighted to find this place. Now I have a place to complain when particles don't behave the way I want them to

 

[Les Sleeth]

You seem to imply in your post that the views of the mystics you cite somehow take logical priority over the position of Ayn Rand. So now I have a question, by what logical means do you think the mystics you cite are "in fact" correct in their thinking about knowledge, and Rand is "in fact" incorrect ?

I don't think Rand knew the slightest thing about the mystical experience. She stood outside it all and thought she was so smart she could understand something profound without the slightest need to experience if for herself. Why should we listen to her?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm still not entirely clear on the issue. Do you think it might depend at all on the definition of reason? If one interprets it as identical to "logic," I think reason is limited (not wrong, certainly, just limited). But if, for example, you equate it with "God" (I'm guessing Rand wouldn't, but other people have) it's another matter. According to Dunkley, "Reason refers to all the mental function that process perceptions into concepts an ideas or any mental constructs." This seems to be somewhere in between, and might it encompass (or lead to) the other sources of knowledge you're thinking of?

Let's say you go to the planet Vulcan where people can only think, but not feel. They want to fully understand love. No matter how hard you try, there are no concepts that fully communicate the experience because love isn't a thought, it is a feeling. So to the Vulcans, love is "mystical" because it mystifies their ability to capture it mentally.

But is love really mystical to someone who is willing to feel? No. It is only mystical to those who insist reality has to be reduced to a concept for intellectual scrutiny.

Beyond the simple experience of love, there have been those (such as the people I listed earlier) who spent time turning inward to experience something inside themselves. That experience too has escaped the sort of precise definitons intellectuals are addicted to. So their choice is either to pretend they grasp it by some "profound" explanation, or to "dismiss" it altogether as illusory (as Rand does). In either case, since they've not undertaken to attempt the inner experience themselves, all their theories are nothing more, IMO, than self-serving guesses.

 

[max1975]

But is love really mystical to someone who is willing to feel? No. It is only mystical to those who insist reality has to be reduced to a concept for intellectual scrutiny . . . In either case, since they've not undertaken to attempt the inner experience themselves, all their theories are nothing more, IMO, than self-serving guesses.

I'm with you there, but I still have some reason issues. Unfortunately, they're difficult to formulate and may turn out to be meaningless
I'll give 'em some more thought.

 

[W A Dunkley]

Your philosophy (Originally Posted by W A Dunkley) sounds like phrases taken from Ayn Rand with no attribution ! These are not unique points of view that you present----

I hold Ayn Rand in the deepest respect so I am not offended when I am called an Objectivist. If, however, you think the article I posted here is in agreement with Objectivist epistemology, I would suggest posting it on the objetivismonline forum.

The statement that sums up where my philosophy diverges from Ayn Rand and all other philosophy is:

"A true understanding of necessary truth and the claim to knowledge requires the acknowledgment that axioms assert the existence of self-sameness. The failure to acknowledge the existence of self-sameness will leave "knowledge" grounded on an assertion that is detached from reality."

My philosophy is centered around a thesis called the primacy of identity. AND IT MOST CERTAINLY IS a "unique point of view." I posted a presentation on this forum, but apparently it was deleted. I did engage Objectivists in the matter of this thesis. It can be found at:

(Please, click on full version for full text.)

www.objectivismonline.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t1844.html[/URL]

It is also debated at:

(Please, click on full version for full text.)

[PLAIN]www.objectivismonline.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t1821.html[/URL]

I was particularly disappointed and appalled how they willingly reduced there argument to the absurdity: "a thing is not the same as itself."

 

[W A Dunkley]

Can you give an example of "something other than self-sameness?"

NO! there is no other possible ground of knowledge, but when a believer claims to just know, it is an attempt to claim otherwise.

Okay, but if I say that A is A, I haven't really told you anything about A. The statement is true, but not meaningful.

NO! The claim that the statement "A is A" states nothing of "A" is false and shallow, but this is what one is stuck with when the Objectivist or anyone else fails to acknowledge the existence of self-sameness. The axiom tells you something of "A," but it does not tell you something of "A" that distinguishes "A" from anything else, because all A is A. This is precisely why it is so profound. the notion that the axiom is true but meaningless is, by the way, a contradiction. Meaning is reference to reality; truth is agreement with reality. The first is a prerequisite for the second.

Is a contradiction distinct from a paradox? How does your philosophy deal with the old "This sentence is false"?

The proof of the axiom is intrinsic. If it is not acknowledged, it can never be extrinsically proven. So before I address the liers paradox, let me say I do not do so in defence of the axiom. To do so would imply that it requires extrinsic support.

You find no meaning in the statement "A is A," but find meaning in the statement "This sentence is false."

Stating the point over briefly, To state that an assertion is true or false is to make an assertion about an assertion and the statement "this sentence is false" is one assertion to few. It is meaningless just as the statement "The dog is true," is meaningless. "The dog" asserts nothing! Again, meaning is a prerequisite for truth.

Maybe I'm missing the value of your point of view because it's so self-evident that I can't comprehend the opposing view?

I will accept this as a compliment

 

[Rade]

Who doesn't claim the primacy of his consciousness, at least implicitly, every time he opens his mouth?

Well, Ayn Rand sure does not--in fact, rejection of this very statement it the basis of her philosophy. According to Rand, the primary axiom of philosophy must start with "existence", not consciousness, because, as she wrote..."A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something".

In fact, it seems to me that if I don't grant primacy to my own non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge (which for the sake of brevity I'll just call "me"), I basically have to let myself be led around by whoever can convince me they have the most knowledge, since I can never verify everything (anything?) for myself. That sounds like a raw deal. Why should I be Ayn Rand's lapdog?

You have a false view of Rand's philosophy. Consider the position you just stated--the "me" of you must then = sum of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable (thus non-concept formation) information, in other words you cannot see, smell, hear, touch, taste, reason, form concepts--thus, by your definition you have no ability to "verify everything (anything)" that you hold of value. Rand does not negate the importance of consciousness as you claim, she places it between primacy of existence and Law of identity as the three necessary and sufficient axioms upon which humans must develop a "philosophy of life" worthy to humans--here on this earth. By no means should you be Rand's lapdog, better to be the lapdog of reality by starting with the self-evident: existence exists.

 

[Rade]

I don't think Rand knew the slightest thing about the mystical experience. She stood outside it all and thought she was so smart she could understand something profound without the slightest need to experience if for herself. Why should we listen to her?

Yes, I recall that my doctor thought he was so smart that he dared to treat me for a disease that he had never experienced for himself (how Randian of him)--plus, I see that you did not attempt to answer my question. How can anyone take seriously your question, "why should we listen to her". I suppose one logical answer is "because she was correct". If, as you seem to hold that "the mystical experience" is a fundamental route to knowledge for humans--it is illogical for you to then conclude that Ms. Rand "stood outside it all"--not a possible state of affairs according to your logic (but then again, what is your philosophy of knowledge, and how exactly do you know it ? --we all know what Ayn Rand had to say about knowledge, and if it was anything, it was logical and fully integrated to metaphysics).

 

[max1975]

Well, Ayn Rand sure does not--in fact, rejection of this very statement it the basis of her philosophy. According to Rand, the primary axiom of philosophy must start with "existence", not consciousness, because, as she wrote..."A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something".

I'm afraid I don't see how a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms. It might be boring, but not contradictory. Also, consciousness does not need to identify itself in order to be consciousness.

Now, if you're saying, "A consciousness must exist in order to exist," I don't disagree. Consider the possibility that we are saying the same thing in different words. But I would say that consciousness/existence exists independently of sensory input and concepts (not that sensory input and concepts are excluded; they're just not necessary.)

You have a false view of Rand's philosophy.

I may, but I'm getting that view from you.

Consider the position you just stated--the "me" of you must then = sum of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable (thus non-concept formation) information, in other words you cannot see, feal, hear, touch, taste, reason, form concepts--thus, by your definition you have no ability to "verify everything (anything)" that you hold of value.

No, I can see, feel, touch, and taste all sorts of things, including concepts. I just don't identify them as "me."

As far as "me" as the sum of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable information--I'm neither information nor a sum, I am not made up of parts, and not reducible. I am a subject, not an object, and if you objectify me, you necessarily misunderstand. (Flip side of the coin: By trying to describe myself as an object, I necessarily mislead--I guess this is part of why the "non-rational" qualifier must be used).

It is this knowledge of myself-as-subject, for which I see no external evidence whatsoever, that I take to be the intrinsic knowledge Rand refers to in the quotes you gave earlier, and this is why I took issue with what she has to say.

Rand does not negate the importance of consciousness as you claim

I thought that was what you had claimed, and I was just taking your word for it (I have not studied Rand myself). Maybe I misunderstood you.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If, as you seem to hold that "the mystical experience" is a fundamental route to knowledge for humans--it is illogical for you to then conclude that Ms. Rand "stood outside it all"--not a possible state of affairs according to your logic . . .

Not so. I mean, Rand didn't undertake to experience for herself what she had no problem criticizing. So how did she acquire her understanding about mystical experience?

. . . (but then again, what is your philosophy of knowledge, and how exactly do you know it ? --we all know what Ayn Rand had to say about knowledge, and if it was anything, it was logical and fully integrated to metaphysics).

My epistomological stance is that we only acquire knowledge through direct personal experience. That is the modern empirical standard, so I am not a renegade in this respect. My only twist on it all is I don't accept that sense experience is the limit of conscious experience.

It has been well demonstrated that logic alone doesn't ensure accuracy. It only ensures the logical integrity of the organization of given facts, but it doesn't give us the facts. Experience gives us facts, and only then are we able to benefit from the application of reason.

I object to Rand's condescension by assuming she can draw conclusions about the mystical experience without experiencing it herself. Even if she declines to pursue the experience, she is at least obligated to undertake a serious study of the most revered and accomplished inner practitioners. Nothing I've ever read that she wrote demonstrates she was well informed on the subject of inner experience.

So I repeat, why should we listen to her (on the subject of mysticism)?

 

[max1975]

the notion that the axiom is true but meaningless is, by the way, a contradiction.

I guess I see what you're saying here. But it seems to me the meaning is redundant.

Meaning is reference to reality; truth is agreement with reality. The first is a prerequisite for the second.

There's something bothering me about this statement, but I'll leave it for now.

The proof of the axiom is intrinsic. If it is not acknowledged, it can never be extrinsically proven. So before I address the liers paradox, let me say I do not do so in defence of the axiom. To do so would imply that it requires extrinsic support.

Hmm. That sounds almost . . . mystical.

You find no meaning in the statement "A is A," but find meaning in the statement "This sentence is false."

Honestly, yes. "A is A" tells me nothing I don't already know. It bores me. "This sentence is false," while a little stale after all this time, was a delight the first time I heard it, continues to hold charm for its eternal inversion,
and presents a challenge to the mind (even if the wise mind will not waste much time with is). Yeah, I think it's more meaningful than your identity statement. But maybe I'm being too loose with my use of the word "meaning" and it would be better to say it is more interesting.

But going back to a stricter definition of meaning, I'm still not getting a lot out of "A is A."

Stating the point over briefly, To state that an assertion is true or false is to make an assertion about an assertion and the statement "this sentence is false" is one assertion to few. It is meaningless just as the statement "The dog is true," is meaningless.

"The dog is true" might be meaningless from a strictly logical point of view, but the brain does create meaning of sorts for such things. From now on every time I hear the phrase "The dog is true" I'm going to think of this discussion.

I will accept this as a compliment

Let's not be hasty, there was a "maybe" in there...

 

[Rade]

...I'm neither information nor a sum, I am not made up of parts, and not reducible. I am a subject, not an object...It is this knowledge of myself-as-subject, for which I see no external evidence whatsoever, that I take to be the intrinsic knowledge Rand refers to in the quotes you gave earlier, and this is why I took issue with what she has to say.

Of course all humans are subjects, that gain "knowledge" by perceiving objects--this is fundamental to Rand's theory of knowledge. But, it is illogical to hold that you are not a biological being made of parts (e.g., an object composed of cells, tissue, organs, etc.)--and that your "subjective brain waves" do not commute with the other parts of your objective body. Your subjective self "knows" that you are a biological object (e.g., you receive external evidence) every time you look in a mirror--or at your arm, or leg, etc. The "intrinsic knowledge" that Rand calls mysticism has nothing to do with "knowledge of self as subject", because such knowledge is impossible without knowledge that a "subject" must be "something", some object that exists that the subject has knowledge of--thus you have no conflict with Rand on this issue. Knowledge of "subject as object" is a linked concept, like the heads and tails of the coin--they cannot be separated. The "intrinsic knowledge" that Rand takes issue with derives from such concepts as supernatural, superstition, intuition, emotions, revelation, etc.

 

[max1975]

thus you have no conflict with Rand on this issue.

I'm not so sure about that.

it is illogical to hold that you are not a biological being made of parts (e.g., an object composed of cells, tissue, organs, etc.)--and that your "subjective brain waves" do not commute with the other parts of your objective body. Your subjective self "knows" that you are a biological object (e.g., you receive external evidence) every time you look in a mirror--or at your arm, or leg, etc.

If I'm going to pretend I'm an object, what I see in the mirror is a remarkably unsuitable candidate for the object I'm pretending to be. Since it is the object I have (relatively) most control over, it is practical to identify with it for purposes of dealing with other people. But it is not the whole story. There are myriad concepts, for example, contained in the head, which would have to be considered part of the whole--but if you look at the issue closely, they're not really contained in the head. Most of them started out elsewhere, outside the me-I-see-in-the-mirror, and many have been around for a very, very long time. All of these, and maybe a few others, will continue to be around after mirror guy is dead.

Moreover, mirror guy is changing all the time. He's not made up of quite the same bits as he was ten years, or even ten seconds ago. We can say he's retained his identity, but not in a absolute sense; he exists on a continuum. Try to define that continuum and you're going to have to draw some arbitrary lines--because if you look closely at the parts of that whole, some of them have been around since the beginning of time. I think the best definition I can come up with for mirror guy will be an arbitrarily delineated set of ridiculously complex patterns of information that seem to be smirking at the whole endeavor.

Also, I note that mirror guy is hardly ever around. He's only there when a mirror is handy.

I sometimes write music. I know which music is "mine" because the CD has my name on it. I have memories of having written it, but the memories are incomplete, vague, murky, like something from a dream. If I discount those memories and listen to the music objectively, I hear a mind at work. If I listen to some other music, by a composer long dead, I hear the same mind at work--different circumstances, sure, but the same mind. If I imagine what it was like to write that piece, my imagination will have as much or more reality than my memory of writing my own piece.

What I'm trying to say here is the subject may identify with an object for a period of time, but the subject is not identical to that object. If this is illogical, it doesn't trouble me. Moreover, I know from experience that subject is free to choose what object to identify with, thereby making it less akin to one side of the coin, and more like a bag full of money.

Here's where it gets "mystical" (if it hasn't already). Mirror guy has an ever-changing set of objects that he thinks of as knowledge. This is all he has access to. Mirror guy knows from long and never contradicted experience that there is always only one "I." Mirror guy sees other people who also refer to themselves as "I." Knowing himself, objectively, to be a collection of objects which sometimes experience "I-ness," Mirror guy realizes that he and all these other people just add up to a bigger collection of objects which sometimes experience "I-ness."

Regardless of what the object is, I am the same.

Is Rand still with me?

 

[W A Dunkley]

I guess I see what you're saying here.

My "guess" is that you do not!

"A is A" tells me nothing I don't already know.

This is precisely the assertion that the primacy of identity challenges and dispenses with.

It bores me.

What is the most fundamental part of existence? What can everything else be, in principle, reduced to? Does the question and indeed a simple provable answer bore you?

Where does everything come from? Is there one uniquely basic first cause? Would a provable answer bore you?

Can a explanation of the physical universe be constructed from this ground? ...and this is the great challenge that the primacy of identity leaves us with!

a little stale after all this time

This statement is more profound than you seem to realize.

 

[W A Dunkley]

Let's say you go to the planet Vulcan where people can only think, but not feel. They want to fully understand love. No matter how hard you try, there are no concepts that fully communicate the experience because love isn't a thought, it is a feeling. So to the Vulcans, love is "mystical" because it mystifies their ability to capture it mentally.

Concepts are references to reality; they are not replacements for the things for which they refer. No reasonable person would expect the concept of red or blue to give a color blind person the experience of color perception. However, if this color-blind person is knowledgeable, he may have a better understanding (and this is achieved though "intellectual scrutiny") of what is being perceived that one who sees color, but is ignorant or science. There is no reason for the color-blind scientist to regard color perception as mystical. The one who sees but does not understand is more likely to hold a mystical interpretation.

But is love really mystical to someone who is willing to feel? No. It is only mystical to those who insist reality has to be reduced to a concept for intellectual scrutiny.

I would never accuse you of "intellectual scrutiny," but, it is only through "intellectual scrutiny" that being "willing to feel" becomes a virtue.

The klan-member in the documentaries who says "I don't need a reason to hate" is willing to feel but not scrutinize. The woman who watches her murderer boyfriend commit cold-blooded murder and then tries to harbor him because "she loves him "is willing to feel" but unwilling to scrutinize. Clearly history has documented that it is the one who feels but does not scrutinize that regards feelings as mystical!

 

[W A Dunkley]

I don't think Rand knew the slightest thing about the mystical experience. She stood outside it all and thought she was so smart she could understand something profound without the slightest need to experience if for herself. Why should we listen to her?

I don't think you understand the slightest thing about Ayn Rand's experience with mysticism. These statements are on the same level as the fundamentalist Christian who brushes aside Niche with the claim that "he died of syphilis."

 

[Rade]

What I'm trying to say here is the subject may identify with an object for a period of time, but the subject is not identical to that object. If this is illogical, it doesn't trouble me... Regardless of what the object is, I am the same. Is Rand still with me?

You are in complete agreement with Rand on the first point--as you state, the subject (Rand calls it consciousness with identity) is not identical to you as object (you call it mirror guy). But, your second point is just not correct biologically...you correctly conclude that mirror guy (the object that is you--cells, etc.) is constantly changing--as Richard Feynman once said, you are last weeks potatoes that you ate for dinner. Your error, however, is that you hold that the "I" of you (your consciousness as identity) remains the same while mirror guy changes--this is biologically/physically/chemically impossible. Because the "I" of you is nothing more than an electro-chemical wavefunction bounded within biological cells called neurons, the "I" of you is also constantly changing with mirror guy as neurons die, new connections are formed, new objects received from your senses are via perception are differentiated and integrated into ever changing concepts, etc. And when you cease to exist, both mirror guy and the "I" of you will cease to exist. But as to your music, because it may become an object for others, which they will then integrate into the "I" of them, your music may provide for the possibility that the "I" of you will in fact remain the same within the "I"-ness of humans, but only if it sounds like the Rolling Stones

 

[max1975]

Your error, however, is that you hold that the "I" of you (your consciousness as identity) remains the same while mirror guy changes--this is biologically/physically/chemically impossible. Because the "I" of you is nothing more than an electro-chemical wavefunction bounded within biological cells called neurons, the "I" of you is also constantly changing with mirror guy as neurons die, new connections are formed, new objects received from your senses are via perception are differentiated and integrated into ever changing concepts, etc.

Okay, this is where we disagree. I don't believe I've made any error (except perhaps in my explanation, this stuff is always tricky.) The "I" of me is not an electro-chemical wavefunction bounded within biological cells called neurons. That wavefunction is just a temporarily associated object. Now maybe you'll say this is irrational, and the fact itself (though you won't call it a fact) is irrational (or non-rational), but my statement of it is not, because it agrees with my experience.

Here, unfortunately, we reach the limits of reason, and if I try to justify my statement rationally, I'll end up talking in circles and presenting a very confusing and necessarily inaccurate view. The thing is incommunicable, and trust me, I find this as frustrating as you do.

And when you cease to exist, both mirror guy and the "I" of you will cease to exist. But as to your music, because it may become an object for others, which they will then integrate into the "I" of them, your music may provide for the possibility that the "I" of you will in fact remain the same within the "I"-ness of humans, but only if it sounds like the Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones are an inappropriate example, until they prove they die like the rest of us.

 

[max1975]

This statement is more profound than you seem to realize.

The realization of profundity appears to be eluding me left and right.

It's late; I'll grapple with your philosophy again tomorrow.

 

[Canute]

It is advisable to find out what mysticism is before forming an opinions on it. It isn't rocket science after all. I'm sure, WA Dunkley, that you wouldn't think of commenting on physics without some knowledge of it. Why then do this for mysticism? Presumably the same lack of rigour that allows Ayn Rand to write such rubbish about it. You don't even even define it as a mystic would, or even as the dictionary does.

We cannot just ignore the important point made by Max 1975 about the limits of reason as a means of acquiring knowledge, nor the point made by someone else that the unfalsifiabilty of solipsism entails that knowledge gained by perception can never be certain knowledge. These issue are more subtle than you allow, and if you investigate them you'll find that mysticism cannot be dismissed as a means of acquiring knowldge on grounds of reason. By contrast, analytical reasoning of the kind used by Ayn Rand can be dismissed quite easily as no more than guesswork, the derivation of uncertain and relative truths and falsities from uncertain axioms.

Yes, there is a sense in which mystics embrace contradictions. But this is not what mysticism is, it is simply where mystical practice leads one, taken to its conclusion. This is not something to do with the epistemology of mysticism but rather is has to do with the ontology of reality, which is said by mystics to be 'nondual'. This is not a philosophical position but just the way things are (they say). We see the same "embracing of contradiction" in QM, where the 'tertium non datur' rule of Boolean logic is suspended. Even quantum cosmologists find themselves having to suspend it, to solve the background dependence problem, applying what they call the 'hypothesis of duality', which a mystic would call the fact of nonduality.

The comment that "reason subsumes all human faculties" is incorrect, as Les Sleeth observes. Ask yourself how you know the things that you really know, and which you know you know, absolutely and for certain, and you'll find that reasoning is not the way you do it. This relates to what you say about identity, in that certain knowledge cannot be acquired by reason but must be acquired by identity. Thus Aristotle's comment that true knowledge is identical with its object. Knowledge that is identical with its object must be 'mystical' knowledge, since it is knowledge of what one is. (Hence Descarte's 'cogito'). All other knowledge can very easily be shown to be uncertain.

Of course, not everybody is interested in researching mysticism or the 'explanation of everything' given by mystics. However, as Ayn Rand demonstrates so admirably, without some appropriate research one is unlikely to form a sensible view of it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is no reason for the color-blind scientist to regard color perception as mystical. The one who sees but does not understand is more likely to hold a mystical interpretation.

What the heck are you talking about?

I would never accuse you of "intellectual scrutiny" . . .

Was that a shot?

. . . but, it is only through "intellectual scrutiny" that being "willing to feel" becomes a virtue.

Nonesense. I don't need to scrutize my enjoyment of the sunset nor a great many things I feel for them to be a virtue.

The klan-member in the documentaries who says "I don't need a reason to hate" is willing to feel but not scrutinize. The woman who watches her murderer boyfriend commit cold-blooded murder and then tries to harbor him because "she loves him "is willing to feel" but unwilling to scrutinize. Clearly history has documented that it is the one who feels but does not scrutinize that regards feelings as mystical!

What does any of that have to do with mysticism? You are talking out of your backside sir.

I don't think you understand the slightest thing about Ayn Rand's experience with mysticism.

Maybe you should study up on the field of mystical experience (as in inner experience) before you say any more.

These statements are on the same level as the fundamentalist Christian who brushes aside Niche with the claim that "he died of syphilis."

(By the way, I am not religious.) They are not the same level. Rand, like you, assumed from her observation of the general population's involvement with magic, superstition, religious supernaturalism, etc. that it constituted the whole of mysticism. It doesn't.

There is a class of inner practitioners, meditators mostly, who achieve an inner experience which so far has evaded rational explanation. It is something only known by direct experience, and every attempt to convert it to something that can be "objectified" ruins the experience. It has been those who insist on trying to think it rather than experiencing it that have applied the term "mystical" because it mystifies the intellect; but if you just want to feel it, no problem.

In Zen, for example, the experience is called "satori." One of my favorite Zen masters, Joshsu, was asked, ""Master, where is your mind focused?" Joshu answered, "Where there is no design." No design? Is that something worth achieving?

Now, that is not the state of mind one relies on to solve problems, but so what? One doesn't sacrifice the ability to think critically when one decides to do so. It is just that one now has the ability to look at reality without the constant blabbering of the mind, which most people can't shut up no matter how hard they try.

I actually like Rand's objectivism, it's just that I don't see it as applicable to all areas of life as she (and you) seemed to. It is useful for many circumstances, but certainly not for achieving inner quiet and then experiencing the kind of silent contemplation that makes possible.

I don't think it's useful to act like you know the truth about the best way to be conscious. In a forum you are going to run into a lot of different perspectives which, if you are going to answer their points fairly, first you have listen to what they say, and sometimes do a little research to understand if there might be something you don't know which might affect the way you answer.

 

[Rade]

It is advisable to find out what mysticism is before forming an opinions on it. It isn't rocket science after all.

I cannot agree more, and of course this same logic holds for the false statements you have just made concerning the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For example, you fault Rand for holding "uncertain axioms" but, if I take you at your word, how does her approach from "uncertain axoims" then differ from the "uncertain axioms" upon which you base the argument in favor of the philosophy of mysticism ? And, what of the "uncertain axioms" used by Aristotle's to conclude that "knowledge is identical with its object" ?, and thus the "uncertain axoims" applied by Descarte to form his 'cogito' ?. In fact, Rand rejects both of these so-called approaches from "uncertain axioms"--although it is true she is much closer to Aristotle than Descarte.

Let us assume that Rand-woman meets Mystical-man, what type of philosophy would they hold, and why would they hold it ? What would they have in common ? If I can get at this, perhaps I will better be able to form an opinon about the logical possibility of mysticism as a route to knowledge.

 

[selfAdjoint]

how does her approach from "uncertain axoims" then differ from the "uncertain axioms" upon which you base the argument in favor of the philosophy of mysticism ?

How does the uncertainty or otherwise of the axioms for mysticism in any way make the axioms for objectivism less uncertain?

 

[W A Dunkley]

How does the uncertainty or otherwise of the axioms for mysticism in any way make the axioms for objectivism less uncertain?

there are an incalculable number of ways to formulate axioms and logical truths, but there is only one basic axiom, the law of identity. The law of non-contradiction simply states the law of identity in reverse. It state that there can be no non-identity. The law of identity is the most basic law of existence (and one needs not spin on ones head while contemplating ones navel in order to grasp this.) The attempt to formulate a more basic axiom of existence, such as Ayn Rands "existence exist," remains an axiom only because it is an assertion of identity. And therefore as such is not more fundamental than the principle of self-sameness. This view of axioms may be regarded as the monistic view of axioms. Logical truths are complex assertions of identity, but all axioms and logical truths assert the same thing, the existence of self-sameness. In an of themselves this is all they assert, all that they prove and all that they account for. Axioms are the imitable ground of all knowledge and they must not equated with postulates or common sense assumptions with may prove to be false.

There are no axioms for mysticism. Mysticism is the rejection of the axiom (and as they say in west Texas, "your one natural born fool if you don't believe it.") But, for the sake of not ruffling feathers, let's just say that this is true of mysticism as it is defined within the context of my philosophy. One may squabble over the word, but there can be know doubt that such doctrines exists.

 

[max1975]

Let us assume that Rand-woman meets Mystical-man, what type of philosophy would they hold, and why would they hold it ? What would they have in common ? If I can get at this, perhaps I will better be able to form an opinon about the logical possibility of mysticism as a route to knowledge.

Here's my suggestion, for whatever it's worth:

First comes the admission that some aspects of reality are non-rational, akin to the idea of a singularity where the laws of physics no longer function.

Second is the desire to know about these aspects of reality anyway.

Third is the understanding that if you acquire this knowledge, you will not be able to give a rational explanation of it.

Fourth is to begin studying. There are lots of different ways to do this--I would recommend trying different approaches without conceding any of them to be authorative.

Fifth is to continue to reason vigorously--anything that yields to reason is not the thing you're ultimately looking for.

Someone might argue with #5 and say that it is necessary to suspend reason. I think you will reach a point where reason suspends itself--when it starts going around in circles is a good clue.

As for what philosophy you will hold if you complete this process successfully, I can't tell you that, and don't let anyone else tell you either.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Let us assume that Rand-woman meets Mystical-man, what type of philosophy would they hold, and why would they hold it ? What would they have in common ? If I can get at this, perhaps I will better be able to form an opinon about the logical possibility of mysticism as a route to knowledge.

I'll take a shot at this. I am guessing you mean: are the two perspectives reconcilable. I am someone who practices, relies on, and has great faith in the inner experience to give me knowledge. But the knowledge the experience gives isn’t about “objects” much. What I get from it, knowledge-wise, is a sense of unity, wholeness, and continuity that is behind a universe filled with objects. If I want knowledge of those objects, then the way I would approach it I believe would be acceptible to Ms. Rand.

So if Ms. Rand and I met, I would be able to agree with what she had to say about investigating objects, but I’d have to tell her that I possesses another way of knowing which has nothing at all to do with objects. What she would say I don’t know. Some of the people here who only believe in studying objects tell me they doubt what I say is possible, but then they haven’t attempted to learn the inner methods that bring the experience I am talking about either.

 

[Rade]

The attempt to formulate a more basic axiom of existence, such as Ayn Rands "existence exist," remains an axiom only because it is an assertion of identity. And therefore as such is not more fundamental than the principle of self-sameness.

But of course Rand would disagree--the "A" that allows for the Law of Identity first has to either (1) exist, or (2) not-exist before it can have "identity" of self-sameness. The primary axiom of "existence" (not the "identity" of any individual existent) is inescapable in any attempt to do philosophy--the only other option is to hold that that "non-existence" is the starting point. And, in fact, this is what some theories of physics do, they start the universe from a quantum emergence of some-thing from no-thing using the uncertainty principle as the uncaused cause. I suppose there is one other option, that the state [existence + non-existence] as a fundamentally entangled state is the primary axiom whence philosophy begins, in such case, perhaps we have then the source of mysticism as coming from non-existence as a sort of hidden variable, outside human knowledge ?

 

[Canute]

I cannot agree more, and of course this same logic holds for the false statements you have just made concerning the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For example, you fault Rand for holding "uncertain axioms" but, if I take you at your word, how does her approach from "uncertain axoims" then differ from the "uncertain axioms" upon which you base the argument in favor of the philosophy of mysticism ?

That's a very good question. SelfAdjoint rightly makes the point that it doesn't matter what the answer to it is as far as your argument is concerned (or, as my grandmother used to say, two wrongs don't make a right). But still, if it cannot be answered then mysticism is bunk. This is because mystics claim to know what is is true, not that they have a good theory or hypothesis.

Aristotle wrote, and I think all philosophers agree, that the most certain kind of axioms we can have are those that are self-evident. Self-evident knowledge can only be knowledge of oneself. This can be seen from the fact that it is not self-evident that solipsism is false. If it cannot be self-evidently known that anything apart from ourselves exists then self-evident knowledge can only be knowledge of ourselves.

It might be objected that it's self-evident that things apart from ourselves exist. However, even physicists are now agreed that naive realism is false, things are not as they appear to be, and this alone makes it impossible to argue that solipsism is self-evidently false, even in the weak sense of 'almost certainly false'.

Self-evident knowledge has to be known to us by means other than our phsyical senses or by our reason. This is because it is self-evident that both our senses and our reason can deceive us. We might be dreaming, insane, confused, ignorant, deluded, in the Matrix, being fooled by Descartes' evil demon and so on. So any axiom based on knowledge acquired solely by means of our senses or our reason is not self-evidently true.

Does Ayn Rand takes it as axiomatic that consciousness is caused by brains? The result can only be a pack of cards. However when Descartes chose "Cogito" he chose a self-evident axiom. Exactly what he meant by "I" is an interesting question but not important here. We know what he meant. It was self-evident to him that he knew some entity he thought was himself thinking really did exist, and really did exist even if it turned out that solipsism were true. This is self-evident knowledge. (With a qualification that isn't relevant here).

This makes some sense of Aristotle's comment that "true knowledge is identical with its object", that there must be an identity of subject and object, knower and known, in the case of true and certain knowledge. If all we can know for certain is knowledge of ourselves then all that can be known is the knower. Here the flavour of the words become more 'mystical'-sounding, but it's just everyday epistemology. True knowledge is knowledge by identity because that's the only kind that can be self-evident. This knowledge may be called immediate, unmediated or direct, knowledge by acqaintance, or 'non-intuitive immediate knowledge' in some meanings.

Such knowledge can't be self-evident to anyone else of course, if it's your knowledge. We can't know what someone else does or does not know. We cannot know whether someone else knows anything at all. Whatever Descartes thought it's not self-evident to me that he ever existed. Zen masters repeatedly warn that knowledge cannot be borrowed. It's a sort of cosmic joke, the only true knowledge is the kind that cannot be communicated.

Your question can be addressed more mathematically as well, by reference to the incompleteness theorems, Goedel's infinite regression of metsystems and so on, if you're into that sort of thing. But that's a can of worms. It can also be answered more philosophically, by reference to Plato's cave allegory.

Does that answer the question? I hope so. It is impossible to take mysticism seriously if one thinks that mystical knowledge can only be uncertain or is irrational. In mystical practice, in Buddhism, Taoism, Essenism, Advaita Vedanta, Sufism, Christian mysticism and so forth, aka the 'mystical religions,' one either knows something or one does not. One can conjecture, or course, but philosophising is not considered a substitute for knowing, and in Sufism is actually discouraged as leading to nothing but confusion. There is no talk of competing theories. Knower and known are ultimately one, and knower and known together constitute all that there is. Thus mystics speak of omniscience without breaking Aristotle's rule of identity.

And, what of the "uncertain axioms" used by Aristotle's to conclude that "knowledge is identical with its object" ?, and thus the "uncertain axoims" applied by Descarte to form his 'cogito' ?. In fact, Rand rejects both of these so-called approaches from "uncertain axioms"--although it is true she is much closer to Aristotle than Descartes.

We cannot know how Aristotle arrived at his conclusion, but I think if you spend ten minutes considering what you know and how you know it you'll reach the same one. "Mystical knowledge" is a grand phrase, but it may, I think, mean only knowledge by identity, and that includes simple stuff like "cogito," or "I'm hot". More generally, it includes "what it is like," which in consciousness studies is the most common definition of consciousness. You yourself know 'what it is like' to be you, having whatever experiences you are having at some time. These experiences may or may not be delusions, in some sense, and for the most part they are according to mystics, nevertheless you know that you're having them. That's mystical knowledge. To get more you just go deeper. As Les says, there's only one way of investigating the nature and source of love. The same goes for the nature and source of knowledge, the problem of how human beings know things.

Let us assume that Rand-woman meets Mystical-man, what type of philosophy would they hold, and why would they hold it ? What would they have in common ? If I can get at this, perhaps I will better be able to form an opinon about the logical possibility of mysticism as a route to knowledge.

The odd thing about the mystical view is that it does not contradict any of the main competing views but encompasses them. It is a meta-view, sometimes called the view from nowhere. It is only a whisker away from materialism, but just as close to idealism. It is not theistic, but if Rand-woman asserted that that God existed Mystical-man would not disagree. The truth is explained as being more subtle. Neither do mystics have any argument with science, except where science over-reaches itself and makes metaphysical assumptions. They've been arguing that naive realism is false since the dawn of recorded human history, and quantum cosmologists are coming ever nearer to the view given by the writers of the Upanishads, as Schroedinger argued a century ago. The proof of the incompleteness theorem just further confirms that view. If Western philosophy has made no progress since Plato then that is just what one would expect to be the case if the the universe is as described in the mystical literature.

I feel there's no problem showing the "logical possibility of mysticism as a route to knowledge." It can be done by the straightforward use of logic even if I haven't managed to do so here. However, showing that mystical practice really is a route to knowledge is another matter. For logical and practical reasons this is something that one can only do for oneself. Happily, it is repeatedly claimed in the literature that anyone can do it.

Cheers
Canute

 

[W A Dunkley]

Here's my suggestion, for whatever it's worth:

First comes the admission that some aspects of reality are non-rational, akin to the idea of a singularity where the laws of physics no longer function.

Second is the desire to know about these aspects of reality anyway.

Third is the understanding that if you acquire this knowledge, you will not be able to give a rational explanation of it.

All of this is fundamentally, absurd! Knowledge is not achieved through a whimsical "desire." "The admission (or rather the claim!) that some aspects of reality are non-rational" negates the claim that any aspects of reality are "rational."

Knowledge is only achieved by the recognition that all A is A. Everything must ultimately agree with reasons fundamental premise. This incontrovertible truth proves that the world must be, in this respect, rational and knowable. Since all knowledge must be grounded on this axiom, to embrace the "non-rational" is to negate all claim to any knowledge or even a justification for an opinion. (e.g., If the axiom is not regarded as absolute by what magic are we to decide when it applies?)

It doesn't matter how one acquires information about reality, knowledge ultimately rest on the axiom.

For more on this: http://examinedlifejournal.com/articles/template.php?shorttitle=evasion&authorid=23

 

[max1975]

All of this is fundamentally, absurd! Knowledge is not achieved through a whimsical "desire."

Not achieved, no, but if you do not desire knowledge you will not look for it, and if you don't look for it you won't find it.

"The admission (or rather the claim!) that some aspects of reality are non-rational" negates the claim that any aspects of reality are "rational."

Not at all. It does negate the claim that things are necessarily rational, but that is not the same thing.

Knowledge is only achieved by the recognition that all A is A.

All A is A is really not getting me anywhere. It follows that all B is B, all C is C, etc., and tells me nothing about the relationship between them. I accept that A is A, but as you yourself have said, this is self-evident and cannot be explained by reason. What cannot be explained by reason, I call non-rational.

Everything must ultimately agree with reasons fundamental premise. This incontrovertible truth proves that the world must be, in this respect, rational and knowable. Since all knowledge must be grounded on this axiom, to embrace the "non-rational" is to negate all claim to any knowledge or even a justification for an opinion. (e.g., If the axiom is not regarded as absolute by what magic are we to decide when it applies?)

You still haven't really told me what A is--and you can't, not using reason. To know what A is, for it to be self-evident to me, I cannot simply accept your assertion. I need to experience A for myself.

To make things ever-so-slightly more concrete, suppose I say, "Non-rational is non-rational." I am in agreement with your principle. If you tell me "Non-rational is non-existent," you're the one who's violating the axiom.

 

[W A Dunkley]

but if you do not desire knowledge you will not look for it, and if you don't look for it you won't find it.

Funny, I was just thinkin the same thing!

All A is A is really not getting me anywhere. It follows that all B is B, all C is C, etc., and tells me nothing about the relationship between them.

Well, for one thing it tells you that relationships must be non-contradictory.

I accept that A is A, but as you yourself have said, this is self-evident and cannot be explained by reason. What cannot be explained by reason, I call non-rational.

If you are really looking for knowledge at least be rigorous and honest enough to not mis-represent me- I have never said nor would I ever agree that the axiom "cannot be explained by reason." I don't know why you have conjured this up, but I find it hard to believe that it stems from a desire for knowledge. The axiom proves the existence of identity. There is no explanation more rationally incontrovertible.

You still haven't really told me what A is--and you can't, not using reason. To know what A is, for it to be self-evident to me, I cannot simply accept your assertion. I need to experience A for myself.

To make things ever-so-slightly more concrete, suppose I say, "Non-rational is non-rational." I am in agreement with your principle. If you tell me "Non-rational is non-existent," you're the one who's violating the axiom.

Non-rational is an "existent' notion with no reference to reality; the statement "A is not A" exists, but that which it asserts, non-identity, does not. This does not violate the axiom.

It does not matter what "A" is, because all A is A. The statement "the tooth fairy is the tooth fairy" asserts something true of reality and it isn't the existence of the tooth fairy. This statement does not assert an prove the existence of "A;" it asserts and proves the existence of self-sameness. Everything else that exists must posess identity (i.e., self-sameness.) To deny this is to deny that all A is A.

The most fundamental thing that exists is not "A;" it is the thing described, asserted and proven by the axiom, such as the statement "A is A." This is identity. Everything that exists is reducible to, and derived from self-sameness. Identity is the only primary thing that exists.

 

[max1975]

Funny, I was just thinkin the same thing!

The why didn't you say so, or keep silent, instead of attributing to me the nonsensical claim that a whimsical desire by itself achieves knowledge?

Well, for one thing it tells you that relationships must be non-contradictory.

This is an assertion; I am not convinced. I see contradictory relationships all the time. I believe there is a non-contradictory solution to most if not all problems, but this is a belief and is not proven by evidence.

If you are really looking for knowledge at least be rigorous and honest enough to not mis-represent me- I have never said nor would I ever agree that the axiom "cannot be explained by reason." I don't know why you have conjured this up, but I find it hard to believe that it stems from a desire for knowledge.

I conjured it up from reading this:

The proof of the axiom is intrinsic. If it is not acknowledged, it can never be extrinsically proven.

I thought it a fair reading of your statement.

The axiom proves the existence of identity.

No, it doesn't. It asserts the existence of identity. "Identity" is the abstraction that is required for your system of reason to function--and your system of reason is only as good as its foundation. Which means the abstraction must match observation. Which is why when you repeatedly assert that "It doesn't matter what A is," I repeatedly fail to see any meaning in your argument. In real life, identity is not such a simple thing--most often it is an arbitrarily drawn line. In fact, to identify anything is to invent an abstraction and make an assertion.

"This is a pencil," but of course what it really is is a thing that looks and behaves like other things that my brain has previously used the word "pencil" to identify. And no, it's not really a thing, it just looks and behaves similarly to other things I've called "thing."

And it's not even "it". All this, of course, comes after the initial decision (arbitrary mental process) that this "pencil" is the thing I'm talking about, ignoring all the other visual data that presents things that don't even remotely resemble my idea of "pencil." If I grab it by the eraser, am I touching the pencil?

Geeze. I started out sympathetic to your argument, wanting some clarification, though not convinced "Identity is the only primary thing that exists." Now you've got me questioning whether identity even exists at all. It's looking kind of like something that's been invented just to help us pretend we're communicating.

I'll take one more stab at clarity. I think your idea of "Identity" is a good and useful thing, and in order to have a rational discussion, it helps tremendously if all parties accept it. However, you are claiming much more than this, and I'm not buying it.

 

[Rade]

First, I learned much from your last post--thanks for taking the time. It really does come down to axioms. For example, this axiom you cite:

Aristotle wrote, and I think all philosophers agree, that the most certain kind of axioms we can have are those that are self-evident. Self-evident knowledge can only be knowledge of oneself.

But, what if I don't agree ? What if I hold first as "the most certain kind of axiom" that either (1) existence exists or (2) existence does not exist, and that I hold this as self-evident knowledge. I do not see why this cannot be the most certain kind of axiom that is self-evident to me.

Next, suppose I reject # (2) for the simple reason that if existence does not exist then I would not be writing these words. Now, if I hold as self-evident that existence-exists (note I say nothing about anyone existent), I must then reject Descarte, because his argument would then be backward, and the correct form should be : I am (e.g. exist), thus, I think. This is clearly self-evident to me because it is illogical for me to "think", before there is first some "thing" that can "think", which must then be the "I am" of "me". I also note that when God was asked who he/she was, the answer was "I am", just call me "I am"--in other words, God does not need to think that he/she is to know that he/she is--it is self evident that God first exists (I am), and all else follows from there.

Now, I also find that I don't agree with this second axiom you hold:

This can be seen from the fact that it is not self-evident that solipsism is false.

But, if I hold as self-evident that "existence-exists" is the most certain of all axioms in philosophy, then it is also self-evident that solipsism is false. Why ? because solipsism is defined as the thought that nothing exists or is real but the "self" (Webster). But, as shown above, before a "self" can hold any claim to exist, first must come the axiom "existence exists", then each "self" can claim to only know that they exist. If quantum mechanics falsifies anything it is solipsism--QM tells us that the "self" (observer) is not needed for two objects to co-mingle. Only the probability of becoming a self is real.

Now, I find I also do not agree with your third axiom:

Self-evident knowledge has to be known to us by means other than our phsyical senses or by our reason. This is because it is self-evident that both our senses and our reason can deceive us.

What if I hold as self evident knowledge that "nothing is self-evident except for the material of sensory perception". Your axiom holds that "sensations" are the self-evident given (reason is much latter derived and has no place here), my axiom holds that "percepts" are the self-evident given. This is an important difference because, while sensations may deceive, by definition, perceptions can never deceive because it is self evident to all humans that perceptions must always have "error" or "uncertainty" connected to them. Thus if I have a priori knowledge that perception always comes with error, then I can never be deceived by that which I know has error. Surprised perhaps to experience an error, but never deceived.

Finally, your question:

Does Ayn Rand take it as axiomatic that consciousness is caused by brains?

According to Rand, "consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". "Awareness is not a passive state, but an active process".

But it is not clear to me that Rand holds that consciousness is "caused" by brains". Clearly, she holds that consciousness is located within the brain, but so to is "subconscious", plus many other brain functions (sight, smell, taste, ect.). What is clear is that Rand holds that "consciousness has a specific nature with specific cognitive needs", thus an identity. What is the cause of this identity--I am not sure ? What is the cause of any part of the human body ? -- perhaps the union and development of the DNA within egg and sperm is the "cause of consciousness" found in many animals including man.

 

[max1975]

Now, if I hold as self-evident that existence-exists (note I say nothing about anyone existent), I must then reject Descarte, because his argument would then be backward, and the correct form should be : I am (e.g. exist), thus, I think. This is clearly self-evident to me because it is illogical for me to "think", before there is first some "thing" that can "think", which must then be the "I am" of "me".

Descartes has many problems, but I think he's on stable ground here. That he thinks proves that he is (because, like you say, there must be something doing the thinking), but that he is does not prove that he thinks. Plenty of things exist and (to all appearances) don't think.

 

[Royce]

I don't think Rand knew the slightest thing about the mystical experience. She stood outside it all and thought she was so smart she could understand something profound without the slightest need to experience if for herself. Why should we listen to her?

Isn't that a form of mysticism itself. While I am a great fan of Rands writing her philosophy of objectivism leaves much, too much, left unsaid and unexplained.
It too is a dogma as well as mystical in her own terms. To me objectivism is a form of pragmatic realism that is a form of materialism and or physicalism.

As Max said, an identity is a non informative, dead ended statement. If we limited our knowledge to only that which can be verified, experienced and deducted by reason, we would still be living in caves.

Intuition is not mystical nor is creative, imaginative thinking (outside the box etc).

 

[Royce]

Of course all humans are subjects, that gain "knowledge" by perceiving objects--this is fundamental to Rand's theory of knowledge.

If this is the case then it is a false not all inclusive statements. We can perceive an airplane yet know nothing about airplanes, what they are or what they do or how they do it. Perception is not the gaining of knowledge or understanding. We can perceive a light in the shy but know nothing about it. Is it a planet, a star, and airplane a UFO or mystical signal from God?
Knowledge comes from experience and understanding. Information comes from perception. "Hey! there is a light in the sky." is all that we can say when perceiving a light in the sky. That is information not knowledge.

But, it is illogical to hold that you are not a biological being made of parts (e.g., an object composed of cells, tissue, organs, etc.)--and that your "subjective brain waves" do not commute with the other parts of your objective body. Your subjective self "knows" that you are a biological object (e.g., you receive external evidence) every time you look in a mirror--or at your arm, or leg, etc.

You are assuming, incorrectly, I think, that the subjective "me" is the same, an identity, as my physical biological body. My identity, my consciousness, my "me" normally inhabits my body but I am more than my physical body. Consciousness, being, me-ness is subjective not objective. I can measure, touch and feel any objective body. I cannot ever touch, feel or measure my or any others consciousness, being or "me"

The "intrinsic knowledge" that Rand calls mysticism has nothing to do with "knowledge of self as subject", because such knowledge is impossible without knowledge that a "subject" must be "something", some object that exists that the subject has knowledge of--thus you have no conflict with Rand on this issue. Knowledge of "subject as object" is a linked concept, like the heads and tails of the coin--they cannot be separated. The "intrinsic knowledge" that Rand takes issue with derives from such concepts as supernatural, superstition, intuition, emotions, revelation, etc.

This is where Rand falls short and incorporates her own contradiction. A subject is not an object. Objectivism is not an object but a thought, an idea, a philosophy that has no objective reality and cannot ever be perceived by our senses, thus, according to her, can never be known since it cannot be perceived. This is the common flaw in all materialistic, physicalistic and objectivistic philosophies. They deny their own existence and therefore can not be known. Just as you assume that "me" is a biological object, but "me-ness is a subjective experience that you can not ever perceive.

There exists, is real, that which cannot be perceived and can be known and experienced.

 

[Royce]

there are an incalculable number of ways to formulate axioms and logical truths, but there is only one basic axiom, the law of identity. The law of non-contradiction simply states the law of identity in reverse. It state that there can be no non-identity. The law of identity is the most basic law of existence (and one needs not spin on ones head while contemplating ones navel in order to grasp this.) The attempt to formulate a more basic axiom of existence, such as Ayn Rands "existence exist," remains an axiom only because it is an assertion of identity. And therefore as such is not more fundamental than the principle of self-sameness. This view of axioms may be regarded as the monistic view of axioms. Logical truths are complex assertions of identity, but all axioms and logical truths assert the same thing, the existence of self-sameness. In an of themselves this is all they assert, all that they prove and all that they account for. Axioms are the imitable ground of all knowledge and they must not equated with postulates or common sense assumptions with may prove to be false.

There are no axioms for mysticism. Mysticism is the rejection of the axiom (and as they say in west Texas, "your one natural born fool if you don't believe it.") But, for the sake of not ruffling feathers, let's just say that this is true of mysticism as it is defined within the context of my philosophy. One may squabble over the word, but there can be know doubt that such doctrines exists.

You are correct in saying that there are no axioms for mysticism because there axioms are derived truths seen as complete concepts after much deep meditation. The problem is that you and Rand et al take it no further. "Existence exists" or existence is, is a deep fundamental truth of Zen like enlightenment. Identity as you call it is a profound truth that reality is, reality is real and the physical universe is like an illusion when compared to that profound truth.

Reality is. Reality is real. There is one, only one reality. All that is, is real and of that one reality. Simple now obvious corollaries are that, as all that is, is real and one, is that there can be, no contradictions and paradoxes. Another is that there is only that which is real and natural. There can be no supernatural or outside of natural, out side of real, i.e. unreal does not exist; unreal is not real. If it is, it is real and it is natural.

Ideas, thoughts, truths, philosophies, consciousness, self awareness and self identity exists. they are real. They, as I said earlier cannot be perceived by the senses but only known and experienced yet they are real. They are just as real as I am, just as you are.

There is nothing mystical, supernatural, magical or unreal about mysticism. Mysticism is experiencing, knowing truth without physical perception.

I ask only; "How did you, any of you, come to the conclusion that the prime axiom is Identity?" Did you see in with your eyes? Did you measure it with a yard stick? Did you touch it and feel it? Did you compare is with other such objects? Or did you think about it, contemplate it, study it and come to know the truth of it, the profundity and fundamentalism of it.

If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then you, sir, are a mystic as is Ayn Rand. God Bless her objective heart!

 

[Royce]

Descartes has many problems, but I think he's on stable ground here. That he thinks proves that he is (because, like you say, there must be something doing the thinking), but that he is does not prove that he thinks. Plenty of things exist and (to all appearances) don't think.

Here, I have to agree with Rade, as I have said in the past. First is "I am." Without that nothing else is or can be. "I think" is a corollary of I am. "I think" cannot exist unless one assumes as given, true, axiomatic, that "I am." is true. This, of course, is true only if we take his statement at face value, out of context of his paper. With in the fabric of his story, his reasoning to reach that conclusion, it is valid.

The same can be said for God's pronouncement "I am." Not that God's name is "I am." but that, that was all that needed to be, and could be said, because that said it all.

 

[max1975]

I'm not about to argue that Descartes' formulation is superior to God's; just that it is logical (if not terribly informative), and that if you flip it around to "I am, thus, I think" as Rade suggested, it is (apparently) false, because there are many things that exist (apparently) without thinking.

 

[Royce]

I'm not about to argue that Descartes' formulation is superior to God's; just that it is logical (if not terribly informative), and that if you flip it around to "I am, thus, I think" as Rade suggested, it is (apparently) false, because there are many things that exist (apparently) without thinking.

It has long been my opinion that Descartes nailed it. It is the only logical starting point. First, I exist. I know that I exist because I think. However, if we analyze the statements logically both begin with "I". This is the same as saying, I am, he who thinks; therefore, I am. I am; therefore I am. This is an identity or boringly redundant. True there is that which exists and does not think. None of those things can say "I am". Nor do they know or question their existence. God or Descartes, you or me, all that is required or all that can be said in the very beginning is; "I am." Given that, the rest follows logically and reasonably.

 

[max1975]

It's been a long ime since I read Descartes. Did he note the similarity between his statement and God's? Or did he not write that down because it sounds kinda blasphemous?